Category ►►► Obamic Options

March 30, 2011

A Question That Deserves an Answer

Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces recaptured a strategic oil town Wednesday and moved within striking distance of another major eastern city, nearly reversing the gains rebels made since international airstrikes began. Rebels pleaded for more help, while a U.S. official said government forces are making themselves harder to target by using civilian "battle wagons" with makeshift armaments instead of tanks....

Airstrikes have neutralized Gadhafi's air force and pounded his army, but his ground forces remain far better armed, trained and organized than the opposition....

Gadhafi's forces also have adopted a new tactic in light of the pounding airstrikes have given their tanks and armored vehicles, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. They've left those weapons behind in favor of a "gaggle" of "battle wagons": minivans, sedans and SUVs fitted with weapons, said the official, who spoke anonymously in order to discuss sensitive U.S. intelligence on the condition and capabilities of rebel and regime forces.

Winning!

Obviously, it's still a volatile situation, and the rebels might yet rally and regain the upper hand. But we must grab the bull by the tail and look the facts in the face: There is a very real possibility that Gaddafi's forces will finally crush the untrained, unled, poorly armed uprising.

Whither then? Commander in Chief Barack H. Obama has very few options, given his prior performance (or nonfeasance) and emphatic pronouncements, including his speech a scant two days ago:

He could intensify the bombardment and target military facilities across Libya. (Which I say he should have done from the git-go -- strike not just tanks but bases, government buildings, gasoline refineries, and the homes of top members of the government, including You-Know-Who.)

He could arm the rebels; but given that many of the rebels are radical Islamists who hate America -- and evidently some are even full-blown members of al-Qaeda -- that might raise opposition to the Libyan adventure to a fever pitch, and it could create huge problems over the next two years.

He could rescind his heartfelt pledge to protect and preserve Muammar Gaddafi's life at all costs; but then he would have to spin like a whirling Dervish to explain why yesterday's war crime is today's U.N.-authorized, kinetic military action.

He could change his mind even more profoundly and order American boots and rifles on the ground. But a full ground invasion would require weeks to prepare, and Qaddafi would almost certainly have won by then.

We could instead use small groups of special forces to get an attack rolling more quickly; but strike where? Raid what? Capture who? Unless we seized or killed Col. Q. almost immediately, our Arab "allies" would likely flip on a dime and condemn the entire operation, pull out their own forces, and of course leave us vulnerable to IED and terrorist attacks. Plus, our Western allies would probably get cold feet as well.

And how could Obama possibly avoid the obvious and odious comparison to George W. Bush, and the highly successful operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the dog's breakfast of a collapse in Libya?

Or the final Obamic option: After the president dithered for weeks before deciding to do anything; after he waited to get approval from the U.N., but then completely bypassed our own Congress; after he flung our forces into aerial attacks and killed many civilians along with the bad guys; after he made a huge point of renouncing American leadership and handing the operation over to NATO; after he went on television and unconvincingly explained why he thought this war kinetic military action was so vital to America (if not us, who? if not now, when? if not about me, then why bother?) -- Barack Obama could simply declare defeat and go home.

That is, he could start a war few seemed to want, prosecuted it in a pathetic, faint-hearted, and fumbling way, and then run away, leaving Muammar Gaddafi even stronger and more despotic than ever. Heck of a job, Barack! I'm sure that will do wonders for his plummeting poll numbers.

Other dictators (e.g., Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Assad) would be emboldened and would regain their vicious and bloodthirsty Libyan ally; the entire situation in the Middle East would become decidedly worse and more deadly for the West, and for America in particular.

See, this is the sort of Hobson's-choice we get (and deserve!) for electing the unexamined presidency in 2008; for allowing jingoisms like "Hope" and "Change," which sound vague but are in fact meaningless, to displace experience, gravity, competence, and coherence; for opting to roll the dice on a complete unknown, an unseasoned "playground president," rather than demand the same standard of disclosure, openness, access, and investigation that we have always insisted upon in previous Presidents of the United States: We got us an incurious, incompetent craven in the White House at a time of grave national peril. (Of course such a president creates his own tsunami of grave national peril.)

I mentioned the contrast with the two wars of the preceding administration; let's make that comparison.

George W. Bush took both major wars seriously: He consulted extensively with Congress, including the minority Democrats. He sought and received authorizations for the use of force from Congress on both occasions. He went to the U.N. and, as Obama did, obtained a UN Security Council resolution that could be read as authorizing both wars; but he had an actual strategy for both the initial invasions and the occupations of both countries -- the first worked brilliantly, the second not so well. He knew how many troops he would have to commit and had at least somewhat of an idea how long it would take. He certainly had a firm set of victory conditions in mind, and thus we always knew whether we were winning or losing at any given moment.

Finally, Bush leveled with the American people, persuasively explaining the rationale for the wars and what we the people could expect.

Obama has done none of that. He more or less stumbled into the war like tripping over a drunk, finding himself thoroughly entangled with incoherence and befuddlement before even realizing it. He has no plan, just a series of negatives which boil down to a steadfast refusal to do anything that might actually win the war. And he's doing everything imaginable to convince us that he is no leader and doesn't even want to be one; he prefers that NATO -- meaning France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, and Canadian Gen. Charles Bouchard -- take command, with American forces just following their orders. Thus Obama hopes to avoid at least some of the blame if things go dreadfully wrong... which his own fecklessness makes much more probable.

And suppose they do go dreadfully wrong: Losing a war in such an embarassing manner would not only flip the 2012 election once again, making it likely that any vaguely competent-sounding Republican would beat the Obamunist at the polls, it would damage American national security for years to come.

For that reason, even if victory would slightly help the Obama administration, we should still fervently hope that some miracle occurs to transform our president from a mere community organizer sinking in the deep end (or more recently, "an errand boy for grocery clerks") into a reasonably competent warrior.

Either that, or we must hope that one of our allies, who stands to lose as much as we if Qaddafi wins this war, steps up and grabs the reins. But my God, what a position to find ourselves in: Praying that the flibbertigibbet French swoop down and save our bacon!

June 29, 2010

But I Reiterate... Obamic Options 006½

Obamic Options
, Predictions

Hatched by Dafydd

I just read this Paul-post on Power Line -- noting that Bill Clinton has sensed the blood in the water surrounding President Barack H. Obama, and like a shark, appears to be circling, circling, waiting for the inevitable.

With that image in mind, I should like to direct your attention to a Big Lizards post of last Christmas, another in my nearly forgotten "Obamic Options" series, in which I made the following prediction:

So what does this chain of reasoning portend? This: I predict that, if the Obamacle ponders the race of 2012 and sees a strong Republican contender and only luckwarm support for himself, he will try to cut a deal with the U.N.; current Secretary General Nanki-Poo would retire with all honors... then the General Assembly offers Obama the job.

...But do read the whole thing; you likely skimmed it -- or skipped it -- the first time. Yes, you. You know you did... fess up!

(Just giving myself an even greater chance of being hailed as one of the greater prophets in a year and a half. Or else being laughed out of the dextrosphere as an arrogant buffoon... I've heard it so often.)

February 8, 2010

Would He Ever Announce It? Obamic Options 007

Obamic Options

Hatched by Dafydd

Today's episode of Obamic Options is somewhat a corollary to Obamic Options 4, linked at the end. The explosion of the gas pipe in Middletown, CT triggered my cerebral susurration, as my thoughts softly whispered, but what if it was...?

An explosion blew apart a power plant under construction as workers purged natural gas lines Sunday, killing at least five people and injuring a dozen or more in a blast that shook homes for miles, officials said.

But let's postulate, for sake of debate on the response of President Baracjk HY. Obama to future events, that a similar blast occurs; but in this future hypothetical case, the evidence is fairly strong that it was an actual jihadist terrorist attack.

Today's Obamic conundrum is quite simple: In such a case, would the president ever allow that conclusion to be broadcast to the general public? Or would he institute a massive cover-up to make it appear as though it was just an accident?

Please note, I'm not covertly hinting that this particular explosion was anything other than a bone-fide accident; I really think that's all it was. My question is purely a premonitory... if a devastating explosion on American soil in the future is determined by the FBI to be an act of terrorism, and if it can only be attributed to a militant Islamist -- not to a crazed George W. Bush supporter -- would B.O. allow that conclusion to be broadcast?

Or would he attempt, successfully or un-, to suppress it... say, in order to avoid an "anti-Moslem backlash?"

I honestly cannot say whether he would allow us, the people, to know the score; and that makes me very nervous indeed.

A desultory, semi-cardioided search discloses a few other samples of this decadent derision:

December 27, 2009

Will B.O. Run for Reelection? - Obamic Options 006

This is a strange post, I assure you. Even by Big Lizard standards, this draws an extra flask of Weird.

My Obamic Option for today is... Will President Barack H. Obama actually run for reelection in 2012? Or has he something loftier in his future?

Don't become a mob; let me present my case:

The predicate of this question is very specific; we assume a universe where his reelection prospects look at least "iffy." I think we all agree that if it looks like he's going to cruise to victory, he'll stick with the presidency.

So assume point 1 above -- that his chances are dicey (like Bush in 2004, Clinton in 1996, LBJ in 1968 -- and unlike Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972).

One of my operating contentions is that, whether Obama realizes it or not, the presidency is really not the position for which he is ideally suited.

He may have thought being president was like being a gentleman farmer, but he has already learnt better. The job requires decisiveness, leadership, the ability to persuade opponents to your own side, and the willingness to stand up and accept responsibility, to be accountable for failure as well as applauded for success -- all traits that B.O. notably lacks.

The entirety of his past experience has been in positions where all he has to do is schmooze, nod sagely to what others say, make his own lofty pronunciamentos... then sit down to his 633rd testimonial dinner. The presidency does not fit that job description, but there is a powerful and personally lucrative position that demands a man exactly like Barack Obama.

Ergo, I argue, Obama is admirably suited to one job only: Secretary General of the United Nations.

The role of Yenta in Chief (or Yentor, since he's male) fits Obama's personality, talents, and experience like a drum. A Secretary General "Lucky Lefty" Obama would never again have to be "the decider;" the Secretary General never decides anything. Like the Director in C.S. Lewis' immortal novel That Hideous Strength, Obama's world comprises nothing but shades of grey. It's amusing and apropos that he calls himself "post-racial"; what does post-racial mean but beyond black and white?

And what's beyond black and white is an achromatic melange of greys, from steel to slate to iron to charcoal. Nothing is ever completely right, nothing ever utterly wrong; there is no conclusion; nought is finally decided; there is always a third way (or fourth, or tenth).

But is the One actually qualified for the exalted, opalescent apex of world diplomacy? Yea, verily.

Barack H. Obama exceeds every job requirement:

He's a "person of color" -- important in a world where most delegates see whites as nameless, faceless "oppressors" who must be relentlessly resisted.

He professes a very, very, very deep Liberalism... yet in reality, he is an Alinskyite: He doesn't believe in power as the means to some other end but as the end in itself. In fact, everything is topsy-turvy in Obamunism: Left-liberalism is the means to power, not the other way round; the principles of the New Left are infinitely maleable and can easily adapt to the accretion of any available power du jour.

As a specific instance of (b), Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush... even as he replicated virtually all of Bush's "warmongering" foreign policy. Why? Because Obama has clearly signalled that he intends to lose all those wars -- and blame the losses on Bush and the conservatives. Thus hawkishness can be presented as the necessary precursor to pacifism... and all the aging hippies pump their fists and shout "Right on!"

He is either an antisemite himself, or else he is at least willing to surround himself with antisemites -- important in a world where, to quote Billy Carter, "They is a hell of a lot more A-rabs than they is Jews."

Obama loves tyrants and dictators and hates messy "democracy" -- important inasmuch as, to paraphrase poor Billy this time, they is a hell of a lot more despots than they is democrats.

He's not pushy or commanding; he makes no demands and doesn't press any particular principles. Just let him speak (endlessly), party like it's 1999 again, and receive award after citation after laurel, even if undeserved, and Barack Obama will be as happy as a doornail.

Final qualification: Although he's American, a real black eye, he's an anti-America American ("the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone/All centuries but this, and every country but his own"), which is a real feather in his cap. They balance out, subtracting what would otherwise be a deal-killer.

So what does this chain of reasoning portend? This: I predict that, if the Obamacle ponders the race of 2012 and sees a strong Republican contender and only luckwarm support for himself, he will try to cut a deal with the U.N.; current Secretary General Nanki-Poo would retire with all honors... then the General Assembly offers Obama the job.

I suspect he would consider the move a promotion; I can even play TOTUS and write his speech for him:

All of our greatest problems are collective problems, and they are international in scope. I have tried as hard as possible and have achieved goals both remarkable and unprecedented... but I've reached the limit of what can be achieved from the narrow, parochial viewpoint of the head of one particular government, even one as powerful as the United States. With the current crisis, this is no time for a man to play small ball.

To further the great project and bring about the vision that we all hold so dear, every one of us -- that of a single, unified, global government that does not waste time and resources in pointless bickering, but gives us action, action, action to implement the demands of the citizens of the world -- I must step up to the plate and accept the awe-inspiring responsibility the world offers me.

I must, with great humility, embrace my destiny to save not just the United States or even the Western hemisphere, but the entire global world. Therefore, with a light heart and great expectations, I hereby announce that I cannot be a candidate for the presidency of the United States this year, 2012; I leave that mission to those Democrats better suited to its limited and parochial nature.

See? I warned you it was weird. Perhaps next time you'll pay heed and flee while you still have legs to carry you.

I myself would rank the odds of my prediction coming true as no better than one in ten, and possibly a miniscule fraction of that (if I have over-analyzed my man). But if wrong, the only price I will pay will be a few chuckles and a bit of raillery; so what the heck.

If I'm right, however, I'll be hailed as a blogospheric godling. It's almost win-win!

November 15, 2009

Extradition Indecision - Obamic Options 005

Obamic Options

Hatched by Dafydd

John Hinderaker adds a chilling but disturbingly plausible appendix to the end of a Power Line post by Scott "Big Johnson" Trunk. The post examines the likely effects of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other high-profile terrorists in civilian court; at the end, Scott wonders why President Barack H. Obama is so determined to try some terrorists in federal court, while others are tried in military commissions. John's addendum follows:

On our radio show yesterday, Andy McCarthy proposed an explanation that amplifies on Scott's last paragraph. He suggested that the Obama administration views KSM et al. as its allies (my paraphrase) in its war against the Bush administration. Obama expects them to make their treatment by the Bush administration, real and imagined, the centerpiece of their defense, with the possible result that Bush, Cheney, and others may be indicted as war criminals by European countries or international courts, thereby satisfying the far left of the Democratic Party, which Obama represents.

This leads me to another Obamic Option question (the fifth):

Assume for sake of argument that some court in Madrid, let's say -- one that declares it has "universal jurisdiction" -- watches the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, then decides to indict George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, and of course Karl Rove for "war-crimes" supposedly committed against KSM and other terrorist detainees.

The question is this: Would President Obama agree to extradite all or some of these defendants to Spain for trial? How would the American people react to such an unprecedented decision by the American president?

[W]ould President Barack H. Obama ever admit to the American people that -- contrary to the knee-jerk FBI statement -- such a shooting under these assumptions would almost certainly be an act of "jihadist" terrorism?

But I prefaced that question on five assumptions, four of which (all but he last) were being widely reported at the time; I wrote, "let's assume for sake of argument that the following reports are correct." (I even italicized it.) Here are the assumptions:

The main shooter was Major Malik Nadal Hasan (or Nidal Malik Hasan -- I've seen both versions);

Hasan was a recent convert to Islam;

Hasan was "violently hostile" to the deployment of American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq;

That the two persons currently being held in custody are, in fact, collaborators in the massacre.

That the two in custody were also recent converts to Islam or radical Moslems.

As it turned out, most of the original assumptions for sake of argument were wrong:

Yes, it seems pretty solid that Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter.

But he was not a recent convert to Islam -- he is a lifelong Moslem who is now a radical Moslem (I don't know whether he has always been radicalized or whether it's a recent event).

He was certainly "violently hostile" to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

But the two people briefly held in custody were not collaborators and were released.

I don't have any information whether they were Moslems, so let's call this unconfirmed.

However, my point not only stands but is bolstered. How? How can my point become stronger when 60% of the underpinning of premises on which it was based has been kicked down?

Should be obvious: Because each discarded assumption has been replaced by even more solid evidence that Hasan's massacre at Fort Hood was not senseless and motive-free, but was in fact an act of putative jihad.

We now know about Hasan's repeated anti-American, anti-infidel outbursts, his justification of suicide bombings, his incomprehension that American Moslems could possibly fight against their "brothers" in Afghanistan and Iraq. We now learn that he posted jihadist messages on the internet, that he had contacts with a radical imam who preached at the mosque that the 9/11 butchers attended, and even that he evidently attempted to contact al-Qaeda.

He was not a recent convert, but he was a radical jihadist. He evidently acted alone when he committed mass murder, but at least two witnesses insist he shouted "Allahu Akhbar" as he did it.

Let's just jack up the question and run the new, more careful reporting under it in place of the discarded assumptions; when you finish tightening the bolts, the same question is even more urgent now than it was four days ago.

And now we appear to have an answer: No; Barack H. Obama cannot bring himself to call this brutish massacre "an act of 'jihadist' terrorism." It simply is not in his nature, nor his best interests -- which do not seem to coincide with the best interests of the United States.

November 5, 2009

Could He Ever Bring Himself to Say It? Obamic Options 004

Regarding the shooting at Fort Hood; let's assume for sake of argument that the following reports are correct:

The main shooter was Major Malik Nadal Hasan (or Nidal Malik Hasan -- I've seen both versions);

Hasan was a recent convert to Islam;

Hasan was "violently hostile" to the deployment of American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq;

That the two persons currently being held in custody are, in fact, collaborators in the massacre.

And let's make one final assumption that is admittedly based on nothing more than my speculation about the nature of the shooting:

That the two in custody were also recent converts to Islam or radical Moslems.

My question is this: In such a case, would President Barack H. Obama ever admit to the American people that -- contrary to the knee-jerk FBI statement -- such a shooting under these assumptions would almost certainly be an act of "jihadist" terrorism?

Or would he insist it was just a trio of motiveless killers, no matter what?

(Maybe he would dub it a man-caused Major disaster, suggest we respond by initiating a domestic contingency operation, and blame George W. Bush.)

Sachi believes Obama would not; that no matter how much evidence emerged, Obama would never say that this was domestic radical-Islamic terrorism. But I'm not entirely sure; he might realize that the disconnect between what he was saying and what the average guy or gal on the street was thinking would be so great that his approval would suffer significantly.

Recall, we made some assumptions up there: First, that all "facts" reported so far hold up, and second, that the accomplices were also Moslem converts or radicals. So everything I'm saying here is conditional.

October 12, 2009

Another Noble Obamic Musing - Obamic Options 003

Obamic Options

Hatched by Dafydd

So now I see that Lanny Davis joins the chorus of lefties chastising us anti-liberals for not leaping to our feet to cheer President Barack H. Obama "winning" the Nobel Peace Prize for -- for -- well, I'll get back to you about that part. David writes:

The strident Republican right filled with Obama-haters shamed themselves - and embarrassed fair-thinking conservatives - with churlish and venomous attacks on the Nobel Prize committee and Mr. Obama. The hypocrisy and irony were apparent. The same conservative partisans who cheered when Chicago lost its bid for the Olympics now booed when a U.S. president won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I suspect that Davis completely understands that what we're angry about is that the award was simply handed to Obama for partisan political reasons, to give him some ammunition to use against Republicans, so he can continue driving the country further and further left with his magic cattle prod. It's a dishonest award... and our American sense of justice and decency trumps any reflexive emotional chauvinism towards our country. Davis even titles his polemic "Obama's Nobel Achievement;" it's no achievement to be given something unearned as a political statement -- or a bribe.

Similarly, we would never cheer an American victory in the Olympics engineered by some cunning interpretation of the rules to disqualify the actual winner, even if he was Chinese or Russian. For God's sake, Davis, aren't you American enough to be embarassed by "winning" unfairly?

Were this an honest Peace Prize award -- when is the last time we had one? -- we would have cheered. Suppose he accepts Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendation to fight a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan; suppose it succeeds. Then if the Norwegians were to award him the Peace Prize for helping bring democracy and peace to that corner of the globe (hah!), yes, I would applaud him. (Though I would wonder how a globe can have "corners.")

But when they just bung it at him after nine months in office, during which he has done nothing to advance either world peace or a foreign policy that benefits the United States of America... Sorry, Lanny Davis, I'm not a mindless partisan automaton, creaking to its hind legs to clap metallic hands whenever the unAmerican Left holds up the sign reading "applesauce."

Davis knows all this, but he bears false witness against us anyway. And why not? Look where he got his training, as Special White House Counsel for Bill Clinton, smearing every witness who truthfully testified about Clinton's many crimes and felonies; Lanny Davis was weened on such polarizing and conscienceless lies.

So I have a new Obamic thought experiment -- this one for both Lanny Davis and the One Himself:

Mr. Davis, suppose that the Swedish Academy were to announce in 2010 that Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics -- a prize that nobody in the entire world could possibly argue he deserves. Should we stand and cheer that, too? Must we cheer any "honor" bestowed upon the One, even if it is clearly unearned, thus dishonorable?

Given that the Obamacle himself expressed grave doubts that he had earned such a prize, then signaled strongly that he would nevertheless accept it... if the Nobel Committee indeed handed him the Nobel in Physics -- would Obama actually accept it?

The answers to these two questions would tell us a lot about not just the Americanness of the Left but its sanity as well. Alas, the questions will never be asked outside this blog; and the principals would refuse to answer them if they were -- which itself tells us much more about the Left than some may realize.

October 9, 2009

Obamic Options 002: The Limits of Tolerance of Pinkos

Military Machinations
, Obamic Options

Hatched by Dafydd

Five months ago, in the heady days of Barack H. Obama's spring fling, I noted that he (along with most other liberals) was far more interested in destroying traditional marriage, by foisting same-sex marriage (SSM) on Americans, than he was in extending actual liberty to U.S. servicemen who happen to be gay.

That is, while Obama is wild to enact SSM nationwide, if he can ever figure out how to do it, he nods off when anyone starts talking about repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (DADT) of President Bill Clinton and actually doing what Clinton and Obama both only talked about -- letting gays serve openly in the military, instead of serving in secret.

President Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

"I don't think it's going to be -- it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately," James L. Jones said.

Like every policy that "earned" Obama his Nobel Peace Prize, this one is a great big ol' fifty-gallon hat, but neither hide nor hoof of any cattle. He talks a really good fight; he's still promising that he'll deliver on this one, any day now:

The Democrat-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn't expected on the issue until early next year.

Right. Congress is going to take up gays in the military -- in an election year.

Later, Jones clarified the timetable with great precision:

Mr. Jones, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," said Mr. Obama "has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on."

The great thing is that this statement can never be a lie; in fact, it can never even be wrong! If Obama isn't "taking on" DADT, then clearly it's not the "appropriate time." What could be simpler?

So... any bets on whether Barack Obama will have moved to repeal DADT -- by time his 2012 reelection campaign gets underway?

October 3, 2009

Obamic Options 001

The first in a sporatic but unbounded series of questions about how our current president might respond to sundry stimuli, whether plausible or peculiar.

Note that I don't ask these questions to elicit an attack on Barack H. Obama but rather to probe the possibilities -- what might he actually do in each situation, given various constraints?

Obama is not suicidal;

He may not be particularly bright, but he's certainly not mentally retarded;

He is not a Twelver;

He is not a James Bond villain;

He is not a fatalist;

He believes he is a good guy doing right for the world, if not this particular country;

He has several aides who are very knowledgeable and skillful in their fields who can make suggestions or help with strategic planning.

Today's question 001:

Suppose Iran has a working nuclear bomb in the near future (less than five years from now). Suppose that against all sanity, it uses the bomb against Israel in a way that clearly points back to Iran. Suppose Israel launches a sustained retaliatory air attack on Iran (not using nuclear weapons) which continues for many days.

What would Obama do and why?

Join Israel's reprisal attacks, or at least aid them;

Remain neutral, neither helping nor hindering Israel;

Condemn Israel's reprisals, but make no move to stop them physically;

Attempt to militarily interdict or even shoot down Israeli jets crossing Iraq to attack Iran;

Some other response (specify).

Today's corollary 001a:

The same scenario as above, except Iran does a much better job disguising its own complicity in the nuclear attack on Israel; we all believe that Iran did it, but they managed to wipe off all the fingerprints.

What would Obama do and why? Does it make a difference that we can't prove Iran's guilt in an international tribunal?

For both questions, please be as realistic as possible, taking into account our current capabilities and how Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world might respond, and how that could affect how President Obama responds.

Powerhouses

Milblogs

Bear Flag League

The Bear Flag League blogroll will resume when BFL switches from BlogRolling to some other link-management site that does not trigger "malware" security alerts. We apologize for the inconvenience, but, well, you know.